Abigail

looks like MJ stopped taking her medication again.

Song, this thread is doing just fine as it is. People communicated, empathized, came to understandings, forgiveness . . . it is all good. :)-->

Well Jeez Rascal, let us know when you're heading that way!

Is that a promise, Sudo? Cause if it is I can guarantee we will be backing out next year!!! We have some incredible camp sites here in Michigan. Or the back yard would do. I think you might find the front yard a little too small. :)-->

"But I wouldn't invite someone into my home if I thought they might endanger my family. " IN this day, such a deed requires great wisdom and care. Since having children I am much more cautious about such things. Doesn't mean I wouldn't do it, but there would be more thought and consideration going into it. Course, I also have three very protective dogs. :)--> Here's another one - When I was about 19 I moved to California with my boyfriend. My boyfriend met a guy at work who was homeless. They worked together and the guy just needed a place to stay for a month or so while he saved up for a place. Well we were in that same boat when we first moved to California and were it not for the kindness of friends from Michigan we would have been in the streets. We had a two bedroom apartment anyway, so we took him in. For the next month we kept him housed, fed, and in cigarettes. He was a wonderful house guest, cooked and cleaned without ever being asked and was fun to hang out with. One day he just disappeared and never came back. I have often wondered what became of him.

Roy, "but Abigail is talking about a spiritual hand out not fleshly on" It is both. If I hurt someone, the effects go beyond just the one I hurt. If I help someone, they may just be able to help someone in turn. Its all connected. CW, ""I can't do that for you. You're welcome to do a load of laundry or something, but you're not welcome to use my bathroom." Yeah, I have a tire iron and you have a flat, but I'm not letting you use my tire iron. SHEESH, even VPW taught better than that! Course what he practiced, I have no idea.

"Would you give to a homeless a shower in your home?" Have done so on more than one occasion. In fact, became very good friends with a homeless girl when I lived down in Atlanta. This girl blew me away! Apparently she impressed some other folks to, cause last I heard she was going to college in Pennsylvania. I will give money to strangers to, when I can and they have need. And here's a wild wild story for ya. One night I was home and someone knocked on the door. Was a kid, 18 or so, said his car broke down and could we call a taxi for him. It was cold out and the kid wasn't wearing a coat, invited him in, made him something hot to drink and showed him the phone. Cab never came. Gave him a ride home. On my way back home, I was thinking his story didn't add up - where he said he was coming from, where he said his car broke down, and how he ended up at my house, it didn't make sense. I pull up to the corner of my street and the convenience store parking lot is full of police cars. I thought, wouldn't that be freaky if this guy just robbed that store. Ya know what, it turned out he did. Got away with it too. But ya know, as someone pointed out to me, it could be that this could would have died in prison and would straighten up if just given the chance. Who knows what ever became of him, only God I suppose.

yes it does. :)-->

nope. There was a time when I might have, but that time has long since past.

"Well, if we apply our own standards and morals to what we think religion should be, of course we are going to see flaws." Is that such a bad thing? Whose standard's should I apply, someone else's? Sure I see flaws in religions. I see flaws in humans too, including myself. We are flawed are we not? We also have many wonderful traits, just as religions have things which are good as well. I was simply sharing some thoughts and I was interested in how other people chose their religion/denomination or chose not to be part of a religion or denomination.

"Abigail, Part of my point here was that many folks here (you possibly) throw around the words judge, judgement, etc whenever there is an idea or precept that disgrees with what they choose to believe or not believe - usually of course - aimed at Christians or Christian precepts. Don't like what someone believes? Simple - just call them judgemental and it makes your side all ok. " So you jumped to concludsions? assumed you knew why I said what I did? What I said had nothing to do with Christianity. If the person had been Jewish, Muslim, whatever, I still would have said it. The reason being, the tactic (for lack of a better word) appears to be not about examining one's own self but examining others. Did we learn nothing from our experience in TWI? Is this not what they did as well? And did they not also teach that they were somehow superior to other Christian organizations. My objection had little to do with religion, per se. It seems you are feeling a little defensive, no?

Which was my point when I said it seemed like it would further divide people. A lot of the mainstream denominations are finding ways to work together, despite their differences. This is a good thing, IMO. Those who think they can decide which individuals are and aren't born again are no better than Weirwille and his concepts that TWI was superior to the mainstream churches. It divides people and puts people in condemnation. That is different than teaching solid ethics and morals and teaching how to put them into practice and then allowing the individuals to look within themselves and decide for themselves where they need/want to change.

". Then they will ask if that individual has ever told a lie, and if so, what does that make them.(liar) Then they may ask a few more questions like, "have you ever stolen something"-even office supplies from work, and then ask, what does that make you?(thief)" and "but essentially what they are doing is having each individual search themselves to realize where they stand" Sounds to me more like THEY are searching the individual. I wonder if this really helps heal people or just puts them further into condemnation. I suppose that would be up to the individual and what they do with it.

Goey, in principal I agree with you regarding looking beyond what TWI taught. Though I do not see the profit in statement's such as this: "To these folks, it seems that any notion of "salvation" that is not all inclusive is "judgmental" or "devisive", yet their own self-conceived "truth" excludes Christinity or any other religion that claims a specific path to enlightenment, and seems to judge others even more harshly than they themselves are being "judged". " Who is judging who? An opinion was asked for and I offered it. I did not denouce the concept of salvation or Christianity in my response. What I took issue with is this: "He believes people have to be shown how they individually are a sinner and he uses the 10 commandments to do it." Now, if he is simply teaching and allowing the individual to look within themselves and decide for themsleves, that is one thing and I have no issue with it. However, if he or his followers are trying to "show individuals how they are sinners" that I have a problem with. See the difference?

I say who is a man to judge another individual's standing with God? Better to be concerned with one's own standing with God. Seems to me this is just another way to further divide people instead of bringing them together.

Kind of, but not really. I can except those who reject it. I simply disagree with them on some things. That's ok, I disagree with most people on some suject or other.

Rack em, my old friend. . . this bud's for you " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Angels 1: the True Story By Adin Steinsaltz, from The Thirteen Petalled Rose, p. 7-31 The living creatures of the world of Yetzira are, in a general way, called "angels". They function on that plane as we function in the world of Asiya. The world of Yetzira may be said to be, in its essence, a world of feeling. It is a world whose main substance, or type of experience, is emotion of one kind or another, and in which such emotions are the elements that determine its patterns. The living beings in it are conscious manifestations of particular impulses - impulses to perform one or another act or respond in one or another way - or of the power to carry through an incentive, to realize, to fulfill the tendency of an inclination or an inspiration. " An angel is a spiritual reality with its own unique content, qualities and character..." An angel is a spiritual reality with its own unique content, qualities and character. What distinguishes one angel from another is not the physical quality of spatial distance but rather a disparity with respect to the fundamental purpose of such an essence. The substantial quality of an angel may be an impulse or a drive, i.e. an inclination to love, fear, or pity. To express a larger totality of being, we may refer to "a camp of angels". In the general camp of "love", for example, there are many subdivisions, virtually innumerable shades and gradations of tender feeling. No two loves are alike in emotion, just as no two ideas are alike. Thus, any general and inclusive drive or impulse is a whole camp and is not consistently the same at every level. Whereas among human beings emotions change and vary either as persons change or according to the circumstances of time and place, an angel is totally the manifestation of a single emotional essence. The nature of the angel (in Hebrew, "malach", which also means "messenger") is to be, to a degree, as its name in Hebrew signifies, an envoy, constituting a permanent contact between worlds. An angel's missions transpire in two directions: it may serve as an emissary of G-d toward the earthly, to other angels and to worlds and creatures below the world of Yetzira, and/or it may also serve as the one who carries heavenwards from below, from our world to the higher worlds. The real difference between man and angel is not the fact that man has a body, because the essential comparison is between the human soul and the angel. The soul of man is most complex and includes a whole world of different existential elements of all kinds, while the angel is a being of single essence and therefore in a sense one dimensional. In addition, man, because of his multi-faceted nature and capacity to contain contradictions (including his gift of an inner power of soul) has the capacity to distinguish between good and evil. It is this ability which makes it possible for him to rise to great heights, and by the same token creates the possibility for his failure and backsliding, neither of which is true for the angel. From the point of view of its essence, the angel is eternally the same. It is static, an unchanging existence, whether temporary or eternal, fixed within the rigid limits of quality given at its very creation. " Those that have existed from the very beginning of time...constitute the channels of plenty through which the divine grace rises..." Among the many thousands of angels to be found in the various worlds are those that have existed from the very beginning of time, for they are an unfaltering part of the Eternal Being and the fixed order of the universe. These angels in a sense constitute the channels of plenty through which the divine grace rises and descends in the worlds. But there are also angels that are continuously being created anew, in all the worlds, and especially in the world of Asiya, where thoughts, deeds, and experiences give rise to angels of different kinds. Every mitzvah that a person does is not only an act of transformation in the material world, it is also a spiritual act, sacred in itself. And this aspect of concentrated spirituality and holiness in the mitzvah is the chief component of that which becomes an angel. In other words, the emotion, the intention, and the essential holiness of the act combine to become the essence of the mitzvah as an existence in itself, as something that has objective reality. It is this separate existence of the mitzvah, by being unique and holy, that creates the angel, a new spiritual reality that belongs to the world of Yetzira. So it is that the act of performing a mitzvah extends beyond its effect in the material world. The power of the spiritual holiness within it - holiness in direct communion with all the upper worlds - causes a primary and significant transformation. " The person who performs a mitzvah...creates an angel..." More precisely, the person who performs a mitzvah, who prays or directs his mind toward the Divine, in so doing, creates an angel, which is a sort of reaching out on the part of man to the higher worlds. Such an angel, however, connected in its essence to the man who created it, still lives, on the whole, in a different dimension of being, namely in the world of Yetzira. And it is in this world of Yetzira that the mitzvah acquires substance, and, in turn, influences the worlds above. It is certainly a supreme act when what is done below becomes detached from particular physical place, time, and person and becomes an angel. An angel cannot reveal its true form to man, whose being, senses, and instruments of perception belong only to the world of Asiya, in which there are no means of grasping the angel. It continues to belong to a different dimension even when apprehended in one form or another. However, angels have been revealed to human beings in either of two ways: one is through the vision of the prophet, the seer, or the holy man - that is, an experience by a person on the highest level; the other is through an isolated revelation by an ordinary person suddenly privileged to receive from higher levels. When such a person or prophet does in some way experience the reality of an angel, his perception, limited by his senses, remains bound to material structures, and his language inevitably tends to expressions of actual or imagined physical forms. Thus, when the prophet tries to describe or to explain to others his experience of seeing an angel, the description verges on the eerie and fantastic. Terms like "winged creature of heaven" or "eyes of the supreme chariot" can be only a pale and inadequate representation of the incident because this experience belongs to another realm with another system of imagery. The description will necessarily be anthropomorphic. " One who sees an angel...does not always know that it is an apparition..." Thus, all the articulated visions of prophecy are nothing more than ways of representing an abstract formless spiritual reality in the vocabulary of human language; although, to be sure, there may also be a revelation of an angel inquire ordinary form, clothed in some familiar vessel and manifested as a "normal" phenomenon in nature. The difficulty is that the one who sees an angel in this way does not always know that it is an apparition, that the pillar of fire or the image of a man does not belong entirely to the realm of natural cause and effect. And at the same time, the angel - that is to say, the force sent from a higher world - makes its appearance and to a certain extent acts in the material world, being either entirely subject to the laws of our world or operating in a sort of vacuum between the worlds in which physical nature is no more than a kind of garment for some higher substance. For example, in the Bible, Manoah, the father of Samson, sees the angel in the image of a prophet, yet he senses in some inexplicable way that it is not a man he sees, that he is witnessing a phenomenon of a different order; only when the angel changes form completely and becomes a pillar of fire does Manoah recognize that this being which he has seen and with whom he has conversed was not a man nor a prophet, but a being from another dimension of reality, an angel. The creation of an angel in our world and the immediate relegation of this angel to another world is, in itself, not at all a supernatural phenomenon. It is an integral aspect of life. When we are in the act of creating the angel, we have no perception of the angel being created; the act seems to be a part of the whole structure of the practical material world in which we live. Similarly, the angel who is sent to us from another world does not always have a significance or impact beyond the normal laws of physical nature. Indeed, it often happens that the angel reveals itself in nature, in the ordinary common-sense world of causality, and only a prophetic insight or divination can show when, and to what extent, it is the work of higher forces. This is because man, by his very nature, is bound to the system of higher worlds, even though ordinarily this system is not revealed and known to him. It may be said that the realities of the angel and of the world of Yetzira are part of a system of "natural" being which is as bound by law as that aspect of existence we are able to observe directly. To continue this discussion of the nature of Angels, Angels 2: Wings on Fire, click here Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz is internationally regarded as one of the leading rabbis of this century. The author of many books, he is best known for his monumental translation of and commentary on the Talmud. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apparently I am not the only one who has seen this correlation. Zix, I am very interested in your thoughts on this, as our resident science guy. " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the ten sefirot the soul derives its corresponding ten soul-powers, all of which have names identical to the sefirot. The soul is expressed and manifested through its powers, of which there are two general categories -- the transcendent or encompassing powers, and the particular, or immanent powers (corresponding to the transcendent keter and the remaining immanent sefirot, respectively). The transcendent or super-conscious powers of the soul are called delight (oneg) and will (ratzon), corresponding to the inner and outer dimensions of keter mentioned above. The particular or immanent powers are subdivided into intellect and emotions. The three intellectual powers are chochma, wisdom or creative intellect; bina, understanding or developmental intellect; and daat, which is knowledge or conclusive, synthesizing intellect. " ...immanent powers are subdivided into intellect and emotions" Chochma Chochma is the creative and generally unpredictable power of the soul which is manifested in spontaneous insights or inspiration -- an intuitive flash of intellectual illumination which has not yet been processed or developed by the understanding power of bina. The creative power which illuminates chochma derives from the concealed level of keter -- "and chochma emerges from nothingness" (Job 28:12), that is, from the hidden keter. The reason that chochma is able to act as a receptacle for the flash of divine revelation is that in its inner essence is also "nothingness". That is, the inner essence of chochma is self-nullification (bitul). This is why the Zohar characterizes the nature of chochma by one of the permutations of the word chochma itself -- koach ma -- the "potential to be 'what' (i.e. undefined and therefore boundless)". In this state of bitul, a person will not experience his own being as an independent creation. Rather, his consciousness is focused on G-d's omnipresence. Bina Bina, usually translated as "understanding", is the cognitive faculty that develops and articulates the seminal energy of chochma so that the latter becomes known, in a detailed conceptual way, through bina. Bina is also the inductive and deductive faculty of understanding (or deducing) one thing from another, thus expanding the point of chochma into a multi-dimensional conceptual system. The Zohar therefore symbolizes chochma and bina and their relationship as "the supernal point (chochma) within its palace (bina)" (Zohar 1, 6A). However, bina is not merely an adjunct to chochma, it involves as well the ability to intuit a more inclusive reality that than encoded within chochma itself. Bina is also the ability to explain the concept to another person, thus "reproducing" it. In this sense bina is referred to as "the mother of children" (Psalms 113:9). " Daat is the ability to integrate and harmonize diametrically opposed views" Daat Daat (knowledge) is the third faculty of the intellect. It is the ability to integrate and harmonize diametrically opposed views or states of being. As mentioned above, when keter is counted, daat is not, and vice versa. In terms of the soul powers, daat in fact plays a dual role: On the one hand, daat is the power which binds together the powers of chochma and bina. In this capacity it is called daat elyon (higher daat), which generally remains in a state of concealment. As such it is identified with keter. On the other hand, daat serves as the bridge between the opposing domains of the intellect and the emotional attributes of the soul. In this capacity it is called daat tachton (lower daat). Daat is not merely another stage of intellect; it enables one to convert understanding into the vitality and inspiration of the emotions and actions. In this sense, the Zohar, refers to daat as "the key to the six [emotions]" (Zohar 3, 22a). A person who possesses daat will therefore exhibit rational, mature behavior, whereas one who lacks daat is emotionally immature and will probably be plagued by inner emotional conflict. Chesed Chesed (love, kindness) is the first emotional attribute of the soul. Its motivating force is love and benevolence. Chesed is also sometimes called gedula (largesse), for it nurtures the other attributes of the soul into full development and maturity. The Zohar therefore refers to it as "the first day [i.e. the first attribute] which accompanies all the other days [of Creation]" (Zohar 1, 46a). Of the three Patriarchs, Abraham embodied the quality of chesed, as the verse states, "Give....chesed to Abraham" (Micah 7:20). He is also referred to as "Abraham, My loving one" (Isaiah 41:8) Gevura Gevura (fortitude, restrictive power), associated with the force of din (severe divine judgment) restricts the benevolent expansiveness of chesed. As a soul-power it represents the emotional attribute of awe or fear. Whereas chesed dictates that one give generously and unconditionally, without concern for the intended recipient's worthiness to receive, gevura argues against doing so, for fear that the recipient is not worthy, or will misuse what he has been given. Accordingly, every opportunity to shower goodness upon someone is assessed in terms of the recipient's merit. On the other hand, gevura is just as influential in motivating one courageously to uphold another's rights to the rewards which are legitimately his, even in the face of stiff opposition. Should divine justice dictate that someone be extended a particular benefit, the fear of Heaven impels one to do everything within one's power to facilitate it. Since gevura is concerned with maintaining proper measure and proportion within Creation, it works to defend the boundaries of the law, be they to one's advantage or disadvantage, requiring courage or trepidation. As complimentary forces, chesed and gevura actually work together, establishing the rigorous standard of merit that endows subsequent overtures of chesed with genuine value and meaning for the recipient. Gevura corresponds to the Patriarch Isaac, as in the verse "The One whom Isaac fears...." (Gen. 31:42, 53). Tiferet Tiferet (compassion) is the attribute of the soul which blends and harmonizes the- " Tiferet corresponds to the Patriarch Jacob" two polar opposites of chesed and gevura. Tiferet is also referred to as the attribute of truth, for it depends to some extent on the merit of the recipient. Nevertheless, ideally, tiferet tends towards chesed, and is therefore known as rachamim (mercy). Tiferet corresponds to the Patriarch Jacob. Netzach Netzach has many meanings, referring to different aspects in the soul. It implies "victory" (nitzachon), "eternity" (nitzchiyut) and "orchestration" (nitzuach). Common to all these ideas is a sense of the initiative and persistence necessary in order to overcome the resistance to bringing thought and feeling into positive action. "Victory" assumes initiative; "eternity" implies persistence; and "orchestration" indicates a creative plan that deploys the other qualities in an intelligent way. The quality of netzach in the soul is dependent upon the degree of confidence one has that he is doing what G-d wants of him. Hod Hod (surrender, acknowledgment) is the complementary soul-power to netzach. Whereas netzach thrusts forward, overcoming the barriers between the outflow of benevolence (from chesed) and the intended recipient; hod (a quality derived from gevura) ensures that the person's success is predicated on his acknowledging the divine source of his power and might. Hod therefore represents sincerity and innocence. The Zohar refers to this complementary relationship as "two halves of one body, like twins" (Zohar 3, 236a). " Yesod combines all into a single creative act binding the giver and the recipient " Yesod Yesod is the quality which combines all the qualities which precede it into a single creative act binding the giver and the recipient into a single unit. In technical terms, yesod binds the higher sefirot to malchut, or heaven to earth. In the soul this represents a person's ability to bind himself to G-d's will and thus bring about the implementation of G-d's plan for Creation. Yesod also represents the tzadik (saintly person), regarding whom it is said: "The tzadik is the foundation (yesod) of the world" (Proverbs 10:25), for it is he who dedicates himself to fulfilling G-d's will and actualizing His plan for Creation. " Malchut... receiving upon oneself the yoke of G-d's sovereignty" Malchut In terms of the powers of the soul, malchut represents receiving upon oneself the yoke of G-d's sovereignty, and acting in accordance with it, as a slave towards his master. Malchut thus experiences itself as a state of lowliness, for it possesses nothing of its own; it is aware that it receives all of its qualities from the other powers of the soul. At the same time, malchut also represents royalty and sovereignty. Only when a king humbly takes upon himself the yoke of Heaven, is he able to find the strength and wisdom to rule properly. When man does good, his soul disseminates G-d's abundant goodness and reveals His greatness. Through man's good deeds, certain sefirot prevail. For instance, if a person displays compassion towards others, he causes tiferet to prevail. Thus, for example, Abraham represents kindness and love, which derive from the sefira of chesed, as explained above, for his deeds were concentrated in this direction. From the "Fiftieth Gate" edition of the Zohar, Introduction " Additionally, I found another website which goes into the neuro electronic impulses (if that is the right term) and how our breathing effects our heart, (from which these neuro impulses stem), the heart effects the brain and the brain the body - thus the benefits of meditation which starts with how we breath. . . Interesting. Any thoughts?

Dan, Sympathy, empathy, compassion. The Chassidics would tell you compassion was the highest of them all. :)--> Bramble, I hear you, being a parent of a high needs child. It takes an incredible amount of patience and work to help these children grow into functioning adults (and some may never be able to, but in my son's case I know he can with the right help now). And even with a child who doesn't have high needs, it requires much. I think if I can do for my children what I do, and put up with what I do (imperfectly though I may do it at times) how much moreso can God? Obedience is important because it helps us function as a family better and it keeps us safe from harm. Obedience is not about how much one loves another nor does it necessarily even stem from love. Some of it stems from respect, but even the most respected parent will be tested by the child at least some of the time. Disobedience isn't about not loving and it isn't even always about not respecting, nor does it always stem from a negative form of selfishness. It is the child's way of testing, learning cause and effect, establishing their own personality, and sometimes simply exercising their own will to see how strong it is or what things help them get their way. Auxano, it comes with age, experience, love . . . so many ingredients combined together. It most certainly doesn't come from force. I think, as much as possible, keeping in mind safety, health issues, and how high the cost (consequences), etc. it is often better to let the kids learn from their own mistakes and successes, then they can own the outcome. If we are made in His image, is this not also part of who He is? just my own early morning ramblings as a drink some coffee and contemplate going back to sleep.

Speaking of theories and religion, I found this yesterday and thought it was rather strange but intersting - figured this was as good a place as any to post it. . . I have been doing some reading and research on Kabala (or however you spell it - so many different ways it seems). I sort of stumbled ino this by accident because a lot of parables and Jewish folk tales seem to stem from it or seem to be a way of trying to make it more understandable. A lot of it either goes over my head or simply doesn't make sense to me. I was reading a website the other day, and what I realized was that what they were describing as the basic tree and how it functions was very much like the way our brains functions physically - the paths and neurons, etc. Which is pretty amazing considering when it was written. I haven't researched it further yet, but I am planning to.

Well I was, kinda, Zix. But sometimes I get a little caught up in these debates and instead of trying to learn and impart ideas, I just want to win. Somehow winning just for the sake of winning, or trying to, has lost it's appeal. However, I would enjoy conversing with you and even debating if there is learning going on along with it.

Zixar, I am feeling uncomfortable with the direction our conversation has taken. I have put myself in the position of trying to convince you that Christianity is wrong, instead of simply explaining why I no longer choose to consider myself Christian. It was my doing and I apologize. You need not answer my questions in the previous post.

Why or why not any religion. . . . . Within Christianity there is the principle of the "one body". That all Christians are part of one body and should strive to function as one body. Some believe this one body will not function until Christ returns, others believe Christ will not return until the functioning of the one body is perfected (or nearly so). Within Judaism there is a similar concept, there is a saying that the Messiah will come on the Shabbat that ALL Jews light the Shabbat candles. The idea here is that when the scattered Jews are unified and functioning as one, then the Messiah will come. I reject both notions. Why? Because they exclude too many people. Within both concepts is the message that only those within a particular religious order are godly or will be redeemed, worthy, etc. Previous to, and during my time with TWI, I lived under the notion that I had to change who I was in order to become someone who was pleasing to God. Prior to my TWI days, I had no real "outside concept" of who God was, so I spent my years twisting myself about to please parents, friends, etc. During my time with TWI I spent my years twisting myself about to please leadership, spouse, "brother's and sister's in Christ", etc. What I learned is no matter how much you twist yourself about you can only please some of the people some of the time and you spend a lot of time being very unpleased with yourself. I figure, if God made, formed, and created me, then He made, formed and created me to be who He wanted me to be and I am rejecting HIM when I reject myself. Now, in choosing a path/religion, I please myself. I find those principles, ethics, spiritual connections and concepts which sit peacefully with me. This is not to say I don’t have areas in my life where I would like to change, I just don’t condemn myself for my imperfections. I have no desire to align myself with any religion which teaches exclusion (that only those who adhere to the doctrines of that particular faith are God’s children or Godly). This is why I chose not to align myself when any of the major denominations of pretty much any religion. I have chosen the group I have because their ethics and morals sit well with me and they are not exclusionary. What about you? Why have you chosen _______ or not chosen _________?

"Honestly, Zix, if there is a proper formula I would love to learn it, because while I have certainly had a large number of prayers answered, there are still those which remain unanswered. BTW, how is it that I, whom an no longer Christian, can still have prayers answered? How is it my prayers were answered even before I ever became a Christian? I'm not trying to be flip, dismissive, or insulting with this answer, but I don't know of anyone here who would understand the reasoning behind it if I gave it. As evidenced by previous discussions of similar topics, math just makes some folks' heads hurt, and analogies just make their eyes cross. So that just leaves me with this: Yes, there's a formula, but we cannot comprehend the true extent of it since we're confined to nature. We may know some of the constants and variables, but it's impossible to know them all given our inherent limitations." ***I appreciate the honest answer. :)--> My only response is that if non-Christians get their prayers answered too (and many will tell you they do) then God must be far bigger than Christianity and perhaps there is more than one path (religion) by which people reach Him.*** "For things we cannot sense otherwise, yes. It's all we can do. Regardless of the pictures in the elementary school science books, electrons probably are not little yellow balls with black minus signs painted on them. But they could be, for all we'll ever know about them. They are smaller than a wavelength of a photon of visible light, so we will never, ever be able to "see" an electron. Doesn't make them imaginary or mythological constructs, though." ***No, it doesn't make the imaginary. However, it does mean they may not be completely accurate. It also means there may be even more understanding to be gained about them than what we currently have.*** "If it is not modelling by trial and error, then what is it? I mean from in the beginning - obviously you have a written standard to model after, but what about those who came before the written standard? Oral tradition, bolstered by subsequent occasional direct experiences. Could you give me a couple of accurate examples? In the Bible, we have many, many examples, Mosese, Joshua...Jesus himself." ***Yes, but none of them were Christian. Which is sort of my point, prior to Christianty there were still ways to commune with God. I don't see anything which would prove to me that has changed since the coming of Christianity. This is not to say Christianity is a "wrong path" only that there are other paths as well. It is my belief that we are on this earth to learn. There are individual lessons, societal lessons, etc. When we come to a fork in the road, which path we choose may make a huge difference to us, but to God - well He will make sure we learn what He wants us to, regardless of the path we chose. Some lessons will just be harder for us to grasp.**** "I disagree with number 8. You would be amazed at what the human mind can do in an attempt to fight for survival and sanity. One can be coerced to CONFESS something, but one cannot be coerced to BELIEVE something. There is always the choice not to believe." ****I still disagree with you here. Fear, for example can be a great way of manipulating people into believing something, TWI used it all of the time. Additionally, in our own attempts to rationalize and justify, we often convince ourselves to believe things that under different circumstances, we would not have believed. A good example of this is the opposite of believing - denial. It is a way of protecting ourselves emotionally or mentally when we can't face the truth. I watched my mother do this over and over again - I remember my sister coming home puking drunk on a regular basis. My grandmother and I tried to tell my mother my sister had a drinking problem. My mom refused to see it until at 15, my sister was brought home by the police. At times, we will do the same thing with believing. Ever read any of the news stories where police have found a dead body inside a home, where it had been for days or weeks, because the surviving spouse wanted to believe the person was still alive?*** "Yes, one always has the free will to change one's mind, change one's believing. Don't confuse free will with freedom of action. Religion was outlawed in the former Soviet Union, but despite 70 years of Communist oppression, Russian Christianity was not extinguished. It survived, bolshevism didn't. " ****If one lives their entire life without having ever heard of Christianity or Christ, how can one confess Jesus as Lord? Can a person be Christian without accepting/confessing Jesus as Lord?********

Zix, apology accepted. We are all only human afterall. I look forward to your more thoughtful answers, as they usually push me to think and consider. :)-->